PARENTS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 28-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, V.N. KHARE, M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
PARENTS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 28, 2000 
[DR. A.S. ANAND CJ, M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND 
V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Articles 14, 15, 16, 19( l)(g) and 21--Reservation 
A 
B 
of Quota-Andaman and Nicobar Island-Allotment of seats for higher C 
education and public employment/appointment-Categorisation into (i) 
Tribals, (ii) Deputationists and Central Government employees, (iii) Pre-1942 
Settlers, (iv) Post-1942 Settlers, (v) Settlers who put in 10 years of education 
in the Island, (vi) Merit candidates-Quota of category (v) reduced from 35% 
to 20% and that of category (iii) and (iv) together increased from35% to 
50o/o-Writ petition filed against reduction of quota in category D 
(v)-Held,validity of quota to be considered on the basis of Alt. 14 and not 
Art. 15(4)-f're and Post;-1942 Settlers, socially and educationally backr;ard 
and cannot be equated to settlers who had put in JO years of educaticm in the 
Island as they are voluntary migrants being socially and educationally ad-
vanced- -Reduction of quota in category (v) and increase of quota in category E 
(iii) and (iv) justified in view of historical background-Art. 14 orArt. 15(4) 
or any provision of the Constitution not violateti----Central Government to 
review the position periodically. 
Constitution of India-Article 1.f-Reservation-No reservation based 
on population in a particular category can be carved out. 
Constitution of India-ATticle I~eservation-Provision for merit 
candidatel~ -Unutilised quota to go to merit candidates-Held, 
normally 
reservation cannot exceed 50% of quota and rest must go to merit candidates. 
The population of Andaman antl Nicobar Islands consists of four 
categories; trlbals, pre-1942 settleFS, post-1942 settlers and settlers who 
have put in 10 years education there. The petitioners belong to the last 
category. Quotas were fixed from time to time in relation to allotment 
F 
G 
of seats for higher education and public employment/appointment. 
H 
429 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2G00j 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The Central Government framed six categories viz. (i) tribals, (ii) 
Deputationists and Central Government employees (iii) Pre-1942 settlers 
(iv) Post-1942 settlers (v) Settlers who put in 10 years education in the 
island (vi) Merit candidates. The writ petitioners belong to category (v) 
and the impugned order fixed their quota at 20% and that of category 
B 
(iii) and (h) together at 50%. This order, formulating a fresh quota 
system, was passed in accordance with the directions of the Calcutta 
High Court, which had quashed a previous order of the Lt. Governor 
which fixed the quota of the 11etitioners category at 35% and that of 
category (iii) and (iv) together at 35%. 
c 
The petitioners in the present writ petitions contended that reduc-
tion of the quota from 35% to 20% for their category violated Articles 14 
and 15 of the Constitution, thalt pre and post 1942 settlers could not be 
given 50% quota; and that no quota was provided for merit candidates. 
D 
Dismissing the writ petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. The pre-1942 settlers and post-1942 settlers belong to a 
separate category and have to be considered as backward socially and 
educationally next only in degree to the tribals. They struggled bard over 
several decudes to make the Islands habitable and suffered torture during 
E the Japanese occupation in 1942-43. They, by no stretch of imagination, 
can be equated with the petitioners' category which consists of those who 
voluntarily migrated to the islands for business or other careers and are 
more advanced socially and educationally. In view of the historical back-
ground there was ample justification for the Central Government to 
F restore 50% quota for the pre and post 1942 settlers. ~ 444-E-F; H] 
2. Merely because the petitioners are more in number, they cannot 
claim a larger percentage of reservation. No such reservation based on 
population can be carved out, even if the petitioner's category consists of 
57% of the student population. It is not possible to give them a higher 
G quota compared to the pre-194:2 and post-1942 settlers who were identified 
as backward both socially and economically. [445-E] 
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, [19921 Suppl. 3 SCC 217, relied on. 
3.1. The Central Government considered the facts revealed in the 
H survey, submissions of all groups and the historical basis of the reserva-
.. 
P ARbNTS ASSOCIATION v. U.O.l. [
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.